PS3 600 dollars? Sony is on crack

[Arnwyn]

And yet you have one. So all the positive reports are "bleating Nintendo fanboys" and the one "it controls like ass" is apparently the height of moderation.

No, I have many, from multiple sources - though I did choose the most 'quotable' (read: funny) of the bunch. Certainly more than the postive statements by commentators with already known biases.

I have little fear of being 'extreme' - some people just simply don't like what they hear.

Also, the fact that EA is talking about making a Madden edition (the best selling RPG of last year)

What? EA? Madden? RPG?

and that Square Enix is working on a shooter called Red Steel for it,

You've said this multiple times, and I don't know what you're talking about. Ubisoft is working on Red Steel. The only thing Square Enix is doing for the Wii is some Dragon Quest spin-off (I'm really looking forward to seeing what it'll be).

says that developers are at least a little intrigued by the controller's possibilities.

Absolutely - I should certainly hope so. No doubt the controller has some very intriguing possibilities, indeed. I, also, have no doubt that Nintendo will iron out any bugs before the launch date - they have a history of fixing and improving things in a very short amount of time. We'll see about the 3rd parties, however.

But please, continue to give us your fair and balanced accounts

No problem. I shall continue to do so.

after realizing what a pain in the butt the PS3 is to develop for.

Do you know if there is any difference between now and what developers said about the PS2 in its early/pre-release days?

 

[takyris]

Do you know if there is any difference between now and what developers said about the PS2 in its early/pre-release days?

I don't. The impression from what they said was that it wasn't totally unexpected -- that yeah, it was pretty much as bad as the PS2 had been. (Which means that they'll eventually suck it up and develop for it, but may wait for other people to blaze a trail first.) In the long run, that means that eventually people will develop stuff that hits all the strong points of the PS3, but that it might take a few years -- as, I understand, was the case with the PS2. With the PS3 being more expensive, a delay of a few years before you see really big improvements might be bad for Sony. Or it might just mean that the 360 is big for the next two to three years, and then the PS3 is big after that, with the two companies kind of taking turns being the guys with the best combination of cutting-edge and product selection. I dunno.

But that was the understanding of a non-programmer, so take that for what it's worth.

ohGr, I don't know what the specific plan is for Mercs 2 -- if they've already sunk enough time into it that they're moving ahead, or if they've gotten frustrated enough to change the plan. They didn't go into that much detail, and I'd probably be in for a polite butt-chewing-out if they DID, and I leaked that information.

 

[Michael Morris]

$ony is making a critical mistake with the $600 pricetag. If they stay at that price tag Microsoft will hand them their butt - but not with the Xbox 360 -- rather it will be Windows Vista. By the time the P$3 debuts entry level Vista machines will be running at the $600 (it will take them awhile to drop because Vista is a resource greedy little gremlin of an OS).

The problem with a $600 console in a $600 PC world (Hell, $500 PC world) is justification of the expense. It's far easier to justify the expense of the PC than the game machine. Another problem is that if I'm going to commit $600 to a game machine why not $900? $1200? PC's only start at that plateau, they as we all know go up from there.

Consoles are kiddie toys. Yeah, they have adult games on them, but they still have the stigma of 'toy' attached. You do not make your toy more expensive than the tools on the market.

Also, if the $100 / game price tag is true the PC will certainly kill the P$3.

(Note, I use $ instead of S for $ony in reference to the rootkit fiasco of last year. $ony was crimilnalliy negligent in this matter, owes the world an apology for deliberately attacking computer owners with the worst of viruses -- a rootkit -- and until such time as they do apologize I cannot and I will not endorse or purchase any product they make).

 

[Arnwyn]

$ony ... Microsoft

What? No "$" for Microsoft? Heh. The irony.

Consoles are kiddie toys. Yeah, they have adult games on them, but they still have the stigma of 'toy' attached. You do not make your toy more expensive than the tools on the market.

Even though the demographic and significant majority of users are all over 18 (and closer to 30)? The statistics don't agree with the supposed "stigma".

Also, if the $100 / game price tag is true the PC will certainly kill the P$3.

It's not. Why are people still referring to this? It doesn't help the already heavy amount of misinformation in this thread. Stop it.

 

[Vigilance]

Quote
Also, if the $100 / game price tag is true the PC will certainly kill the P$3.

It's not. Why are people still referring to this? It doesn't help the already heavy amount of misinformation in this thread. Stop it.

But it does seem clear that PS3 games will be more expensive than X-Box 360 games for the same reason the console will be more expensive does it not?

So it seems clear to me that the PS3 will be 100 dollars more expensive than a comparable X-Box 360 and that their games will be more expensive, probably 10-20 dollars. And there's no wiggle room on software. Manufacturers lose money on these cutting edge consoles, so the game MUST be priced to be profitable items.

But even if the games are the exact same price, the console will be 100 dollars more, assuming MS does nothing (they could drop the price).

If you are 100 dollars more expensive than your competition, then you had better be a MUCH better product or have a LOT of exclusive games.

This is the point I started this thread with, and for all the blind PS loyalty people have thrown at me, no one has explained why this isn't so.

People have this conventional wisdom pair of goggles on about this issue. The PS has always won so it will just keep on truckin. Sort of like Sega and the Dreamcast I guess.

 

[drothgery]

Do you know if there is any difference between now and what developers said about the PS2 in its early/pre-release days?

The much-easier-to-code-for console that's been out for a year already is made by Microsoft (with about $40 billion in cash on hand), not Sega (which was nearly bankrupt), and there are no questions about whether or not Nintendo's going to make a current-gen non-portable console (there were a couple of years ago, but not anymore).

Or it might just mean that the 360 is big for the next two to three years, and then the PS3 is big after that, with the two companies kind of taking turns being the guys with the best combination of cutting-edge and product selection. I dunno.

The problem with this is timing. If the 360 owns the next 2-3 years, then the PS3 is just dead, period, because 3-4 years from now (3 if MS keeps up with the 4 year life cycle trend they started with Xbox->Xbox 360; 4 if they go with the more conventional 5 years) we'll see the third-generation Xbox, and Sony, which always tries to get at least 6 years out of a console before launching a successor, will have another 2 years (at least) before PS4.

 

[John Crichton]

$ony is making a critical mistake with the $600 pricetag. If they stay at that price tag Microsoft will hand them their butt - but not with the Xbox 360 -- rather it will be Windows Vista. By the time the P$3 debuts entry level Vista machines will be running at the $600 (it will take them awhile to drop because Vista is a resource greedy little gremlin of an OS).

The problem with a $600 console in a $600 PC world (Hell, $500 PC world) is justification of the expense. It's far easier to justify the expense of the PC than the game machine. Another problem is that if I'm going to commit $600 to a game machine why not $900? $1200? PC's only start at that plateau, they as we all know go up from there.

Consoles are kiddie toys. Yeah, they have adult games on them, but they still have the stigma of 'toy' attached. You do not make your toy more expensive than the tools on the market.

Also, if the $100 / game price tag is true the PC will certainly kill the P$3.

(Note, I use $ instead of S for $ony in reference to the rootkit fiasco of last year. $ony was crimilnalliy negligent in this matter, owes the world an apology for deliberately attacking computer owners with the worst of viruses -- a rootkit -- and until such time as they do apologize I cannot and I will not endorse or purchase any product they make).

Arnwyn already used up all my points relating to the particulars of your post, so I'll just say: Dude, it's all about the games. All companies are jerks. It's all about the games. If their are good games on the PS3, it is worth having. Bottom line.

Also, it's a PC world, but not a PC gaming world. It's all about consoles and handhelds. The PC is the domain of the MMORPG, FPS and RTS. The rest of the genres are more or less absent. The PC will always have its niche and that's a good thing. But to compare Windows Vista to the PS3 is silly. If history is any indicator, the PS3 will have a very strong selection of all kinds of games which can't be said about the PC.

 

[John Crichton]

But it does seem clear that PS3 games will be more expensive than X-Box 360 games for the same reason the console will be more expensive does it not?

No, it doesn't. If you are basing your opinion of this on internet articles, comments that contain no details from Sony folks and unnamed Devs, try this whopper out (first post, let it load):

http://www.hdtvarcade.com/hdtvforum/index.php?showtopic=6547&st=0

So it seems clear to me that the PS3 will be 100 dollars more expensive than a comparable X-Box 360 and that their games will be more expensive, probably 10-20 dollars. And there's no wiggle room on software. Manufacturers lose money on these cutting edge consoles, so the game MUST be priced to be profitable items.

Yup. That's what has been going on for the last 2 consoles from both of the big companies. That's not an indicator of game price increases. History shows this to be true.

But even if the games are the exact same price, the console will be 100 dollars more, assuming MS does nothing (they could drop the price).

Not that big of an obsticle as you may think. Would you like to place a wager right now on the PS3 selling out at launch or not followed by a shortage of systems that jacks eBay prices through the roof?

All that despite not having a single must-have exclusive. Sounds like the PS2 & 360 to me.

If you are 100 dollars more expensive than your competition, then you had better be a MUCH better product or have a LOT of exclusive games.

Exclusive games! There you go. Sony has that covered, historically speaking and even now. Japanese devs will go to the PS3 first and that alone gives the PS3 games that will be exclusives.

This is the point I started this thread with, and for all the blind PS loyalty people have thrown at me, no one has explained why this isn't so.

It's because your theory has holes in it. Because a console costs more doesn't mean that the games will have to cost more. There is no history for this happening. If anything, game prices have gone down and only now with special editions and the 360 are the prices rising above the $50 price tag.

People have this conventional wisdom pair of goggles on about this issue. The PS has always won so it will just keep on truckin. Sort of like Sega and the Dreamcast I guess.

Did you just compare a dead system to the most popular videogame system in the world, the PS2? Sega owned that title for like a year during the Genesis days. The only appropriate comparison is Nintendo's fall from the top. When the N64/Gamecube stopped getting (or never had) a heathly selection of games in all genres that's when it lost market share. The fact that Sony could wait until after the 360 came out to release the PS3 (even though they are releasing it early) is a huge benefit for them. The PS2 is still the best selling console out there and it still has two must have exclusives coming out this year: FFXII & God of War II. So, please don't try and use the Dreamcast's demise to predict the PS3's. There is no comparison.

 

[Vigilance]

No, it doesn't. If you are basing your opinion of this on internet articles, comments that contain no details from Sony folks and unnamed Devs, try this whopper out (first post, let it load):

Well, I was basing it on things Id read about the Blue Ray technology being more expensive. I'm happy to be proven wrong about this.

For me, the fact that both consoles' games wont even look good on a non HD-TV means it's the PC and the Wii for me. I might splurge and get a HD-TV this Christmas, but that's clearly the next step.

Chuck

 

[drothgery]

The fact that Sony could wait until after the 360 came out to release the PS3 (even though they are releasing it early) is a huge benefit for them.

No, it's not. First to market doesn't always win, but it never hurts. And first to ten million (which will be the 360 this generation unless something crazy happens) does always win. This may be the first exception, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The PS2 is still the best selling console out there and it still has two must have exclusives coming out this year: FFXII & God of War II. So, please don't try and use the Dreamcast's demise to predict the PS3's. There is no comparison.

There's not really a good analogy. I think the closest model is Nintendo going from SNES->N64, but that's a bit strained (where they were coming from market leadership, but their next-gen console was late, over-promised, and under-delivered, and so dropped from market leadership to a major niche player).

Nobody's been coming from a previous-gen position as strong as Sony's coming from since Nintendo in the NES days. And nobody's done as much to shoot themselves in the foot since Nintendo and Sega in the SNES/Genesis->N64/Saturn/PS1 transition. No major console maker has been in such bad shape financially since Sega around the Dreamcast launch (though Sega was in worse shape).